Mavimao

The missing horizontal information is marginal as far as I can see and it is necessary to crop it just a little because the edges are never pixel accurate in film. This isn't digital. The information on the extreme edges are subtly changing/weaving because of the mechanical action of the film camera. 

You can stabilize the full film frame in relation to the sprocket holes, but the image inside will weave instead! That's why you need to crop just a bit of the filmed image area to keep the image steady. Don't worry, because the cinematographer knew it would be cropped even worse in theaters and made sure there was nothing important on the far edges. 

The vertical information is interesting in an educational setting, but you will see boom mikes, c-stands, missing ceilings etc. An interesting version to be sure, but not "superior". 

Molly said:

I thought Chewbacca was renamed in France too?

 Yup: Chico. But just for episode 4. To the general public in France, he's just known as Chewbacca. 

The translators probably thought his name came from "Chew tobacco" which, in turn, is "chique du tabac". Chique -> Chico. Voilà. 

There are a couple of weird translations like that in the French version of Episode 4 that they didn't use for the subsequent films. 

yoda-sama said:

iRed4321 said:

How do you find that ?

http://i.imgur.com/r48wOtl.jpg

Not to pick on the French, but for some reason, of all the characters' names mentioned on that cover, I did not expect Han Solo's to be the most butchered in translation.  Yan Solo, (even Dark Vador fared better) LOL.

Also, as a person looking for a French cover, are you satisfied with the English title used on that cover and spine, or would you be more interested in one which features "la guerre des étoiles"?  (I'm honestly curious.)

 The problem with Han in French is that it's phonetically similar to "âne" which means "donkey". Yann is already a common French name so it works better. 

Et bienvenu au forum iRed! Tu verras, on est tous gentils ici et on ne mords pas. Enfin, pas trop. 

Skoal: I'd be very interested in hearing what specific examples you have seen to show that H.265 is superior to H.264. Perhaps you have a link or have made your own encodes?

As per your inquiry for the cropping: Jurassic Park needs to be cropped. It was filmed in the academy aspect ratio (1.33), filling up the total usable film frame but leaving room for the sound track. This was done with the intention for it to be shown in theaters cropped in the middle to 1.85, but leaving enough information on the top and bottom to make a fullscreen conversion to home video a lot easier. (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_matte)

However, shots that use CGI are automatically cropped to the theatrical ratio. This was done because the price of storage was much higher then than it is now and this was done to save time and money. (Just a side note: even photochemical sfx shots were cropped since they originated from higher resolution film formats like VistaVision or 70mm and their aspect ratios are wider than 1.33)

Anyway, while the live action shots have a lot of information on the top and bottom, this was really never meant to be seen and you can see boom mikes, C-stands, missing ceilings, etc. So, -1 have to go through and see what the best framing would be. 

THX11384EB said:

Molly said:

The 1971 print we have has the Buck Rodgers clip in it...

I understand that, I am talking about the original theatrical release which supposedly had a 1-minute clip from "Things to Come" (1936) before the opening credits; instead of the Buck Rogers segment we currently have.

 Thing is, we're not sure that's even true. This print has been confirmed to be an authentic 1971 print and while there are differences from the later post Star Wars re-release, there aren't that many. 

We're all wondering if the stories surrounding the "meddling of the studios" hasn't been exaggerated to some degree. 

RE blackcrush: you have to remember that film has a MUCH larger colorspace than DVD or Bluray. 

Whereas details can still be seen in very dark areas on a projected film or DCP, those areas will just come out as black on an 8-bit colorspace. 

We're really due for an increase in colorspace in our media and monitors. In my opinion, the resolutions we have today (4k and even 8k) are about as good as we'll ever need - especially at home. The real eye-opener with the upcoming UHDeye-opener will not be the increase in resolution, but the rec.2020 colorspace.

"Partially cropped" - does this mean you're leaving it open matte? While JP was NEVER meant to be seen like this, I am definitely interested in watching it like this just to see what kind of junk is out of frame. 

If not, anyone want to make a quick and dirty encode...? My 2009 white macbook is definitely not up to the task.

I saw it last night and, at first, I thought there could be some potential to be the 3rd best in the series... Alas, after they travel forward in time to 2017, it became more than clear that this is just another waste of plastic in the 7-11 $1.99 DVD bargain bin basket with the other "sequels". 

The concept could have worked, but for some reason they needed to travel to the future to stop yet another version of Skynet with another stupid upgraded Terminator instead of staying grounded in 1984 and doing something much more interesting. I can't wait to see the cinema sins take on this film because, while time travel has always caused paradoxal plot holes, the ones here are insanely huge to be ignored (like, how would middle aged John Connor exist in 2029 if his parents time traveled to 2017 with no plan of going back to 1984 and procreating, Why would Kyle Reese need to go find himself as a child to say that Genisys is Skynet when Genisys doesn't exist anymore. If Genisys/Skynet is busted - but I'm sure it'll come back in SOME form in later sequels - how is college aged Kyle Reese still chosen in 2029 to go back?)

The leads had zero romantic chemistry and they looked and acted more like college students hanging out between seminars than the shell-shocked, hardened warriors of Michael Bien and Linda Hamilton in the earlier films. Not to mention the dialogue. The dialogue... As a teacher of literature, I just. Can't. Stand. Modern. Film. Screenplays. Everything nowadays is just rehashes of tired cliché lines that have been done and redone and redone some more. I could swear that modern screenplays are written by computers from a very small database of one-liners and snarky comebacks. 

So there you go. So much potential wasted. Such a shame. 

Good luck Poita! 

Turisu said:

Dodgeson! Dodgeson! We've got Dodgeson here!
See? Nobody cares. :D

 One post to rule them all. 

It's to show that when they re-composited the shots in 1997, they didn't exactly line up. 

The SE vs the original

If anyone is curious, those cans are freaking heavy. 

(Now what movie is in them??? And there should be more for a complete feature...)

Just finished the preview and wow! Great job with the cleanup! Can't wait for the final pass...and the rest of the film!

Thank you!

Ah, I see what you mean. In that case, I don't see why not, but I don't have experience with these sorts of set ups. 

lipscgr said:

team_negative1 said:

For those that have recently joined, or have not followed our advances.

We mentioned this in some other previous replies. Since the project has started, we have gone through several hardware improvements, and also acquired more prints.

Currently, we have a 35mm Projector, and a Digital video camera, capable of capturing at 4k, in 24fps realtime.

All of our recents scans use this setup, and we have rescanned portions of earlier prints with it also, when needed.

We have a Dolby digital decoder for the sound, and are also looking into expanding to 70mm capture, and other future improvements.

We are mostly self-funded, but have had some donations for a brief period of time.

We have a lot of custom adjustments with the hardware, and have converted to mostly professional equipment since the time we first started.

Team Negative1

 What type of camera do you use?  Is it a full frame sensor with a macro lens like a Canon 5D mark iii?  I am looking into building a similar setup for 8mm film, and have this camera.  Any advice on what lens to use?

Also how do you capture the sound strip from the film?  Do you pull it from the digital pictures, or do you scan it directly from the film?

Thanks

 Dslrs or other similar cameras are not recommended due to mechanical shutters and or the mirror mechanism. You'll wear them out by the time you finish your first scan. 

Trooperman said:

I call it the 1971 Director's Cut because the official story (according to what I read) is that the '78 version is exactly the version that George Lucas handed in in 1971 before the studio played with it.

However, given George's penchant for remembering things a little differently than they happened, I guess we can't be 100% sure.

 If you go over to the THX preservations thread, we talk about the differences between the 1971 version and the 1978 version. The strange part is that they are very very similar. There's an extended scene with SEN and some children and a re-order of various shots. 

It's definitely a change, but nothing like the studio meddlings of Brazil, Magnificent Ambersons or Greed. Seems as though ol' George has exaggerated the situation a bit. 

Peanut butter jelly time!

Its. So. Beautiful. 

Thanks for sharing Poita!

Ooooou... Sh** is getting serious! 

Hey! You kept my voice after all :)

msycamore said:

Mavimao said:

I think I may have found a difference from the original version: when the naked hologram is dancing and THX is erm... Enjoying it, it cuts back and forth to LUH, contemplating taking her meds. Was this always the case? I have only seen the laserdisc and that was almost 10 years ago. 

Yes, it cuts back and forth between them quite a bit during that scene, in both the 1978 and 2004 re-releases. That's not to say the sequence is exactly the same. I haven't seen this transfer myself yet, short on hdd space. 

I saw one comment over at the Spleen mention the total run time is approximately 85 minutes, is that correct?

 Ah! I remembered wrong then. Thanks for clearing that up. 

Awesome milestone! This is really exciting! 

I've downloaded it and watched a bit. What a great find and the quality is pretty good for a 16mm reduction print. Good idea for taking out the chroma. 

I think I may have found a difference from the original version: when the naked hologram is dancing and THX is erm... Enjoying it, it cuts back and forth to LUH, contemplating taking her meds. Was this always the case? I have only seen the laserdisc and that was almost 10 years ago. 

DavidMerrick said:

Yeah, I mentioned in the Star Wars DE thread how some orange blotches could be seen on Mark Hamill and Harrison Ford's faces at times. Harmy said the actual discolouration was due to limitations of dealing with the official BD transfer, but those blotches are very clearly over-applied makeup. Filmmakers in 1977 weren't anticipating a future of Blu Rays and 4K, so some of these details weren't meant to be seen.

As I'm typing this I'm feeling even better about these restorations.

 There were similar problems with other restorations using the OCN: with The Wizard of Oz, the wires that were propping up the lion's tail were visible and they had to digitally erase them. The same issue came up with The Godfather Part 2 where the wires for the squibs were visible in the scene when Fanucci is killed by Vito.